posted 07-23-2011 11:21 AM
A friend keeps boasting that this is costing theater exhibitors a ton... Here are my facts which I told him and which you can all criticize all you want but they's the facts.

When you see 4K DLP you will see why. It embodies everything film can only strive to do... There are those that claim it is BETTER than 15/70 Imax... I donno about that though! So how does it cost more? It doesn't cost any more than... a very good theater sound system costs and which every theater SHOULD HAVE ANYWAY. Good theater sound systems or at least major parts of them also need replacing every 15 to 20 years. Digital costs about the same as a new 70mm projector from Kinoton or about the same as a 2 projector booth did with new JJ's. Lamp cost has already dropped as manufacturing quantities gain momentum and new lamps are being introduced all the time. One "digital" 2kw 2400 hour lamp from Osram costs only ~100.00 more then a 2KW CXL-20 cinema lamp. The projectors also typically use LESS power and typically require LESS maintainance. * I forgot to mention to him that at least some of the maintainance can be done without ever having to visit the theater.

posted 07-23-2011 01:30 PM
I've installed three of them so far. Very nice piece of gear and image quality thats almost scarey when you run 4K content. With 3-Dee you get 12 bit color over the standard 10 bit and 3-Dee looks much better as a result. The extra cost to go 4K at least with the NEC 3240/IMB Server is about 8 grand over and above the similar NC-3200 2K version. ~4.5 grand more for the basic projector and 2500 more for the 4K IMB version of the GDC server. I donno where other manufacturers have priced theirs yet. Existing lensing is compatable and generally you need to go 1 step UP in lensing as the chips are 1.38" instead of 1.2" and of course extra brightness occurs. Perhaps a really good choice for Drive Ins. There is always room for improvement in digital lensing and the real potential of 4K may not be known until a company like Schneider decides to produce some lensing for them.

I believe the only difference might be is one is high contrast and one is just the normal lens. Christie offers that as well. I believe the only difference is that there is an aperature in the lens as they are not quite as light efficient. With NEC to gain higher contrast you just install the factory supplied aperature onto the input end of the integrator rod. I am also seeing three brands of lensing now from NEC. N-Vision which is an Austrian Company. The usual Konica-Minolta, and Fujinon which I know Barco also uses. The N-Vision lensing appears to perform the best as far as sharpness and contrast but has the slowest zoom and focus motors. Fujinon is the fastest in that regard.

posted 07-26-2011 09:44 AM
Most are experiencing more light on the 4Ks due to the larger aperture (1.38" versus 1.2"). I don't know how well documented the real world gain is, however. I know one brand was putting up higher lumen specs in the literature before they had projectors.

posted 07-26-2011 09:49 PM
"I know one brand was putting up higher lumen specs in the literature before they had projectors."

It can be worked out mathematically if the specs of the existing optical chain is already known... kind of like designing a zoom lens. This is not something that is always measured and then published because optical designs can come very close to the target sought... although it obviously should also to be confirmed by prototype. The 4K NEC's that I've installed are considerably brighter then the same 2K counterpart is although I can't give a percentage of increase I'd estimate around 15 to 20% more light. The prism block's transmissivity is already a known thing as thats one of the targets used to design it. The glass used to make it is also a known factor. Some of the 4K projectors are just adapted 2K units usung the exact same lamphouse and several other existing items in the light chain. All it really requires is a slightly larger integrator rod and the 4K prism block and thus many existing 2K units can easily be converted to 4K quite easily. Even existing ICP modules will work if they have adaquate memory on them. To be honest if one is looking at buying large 2K projectors going to 4K is not that much more $$ and it's a good thing in other ways as well.

posted 07-26-2011 10:57 PM
Of the projectors I've measured...none have hit their advertised lumen specs. In the fine print, they always stipulate that it was based on using the best lens possible and that variances of up to 10% should be expected...etc.

One must presume they all lie and hope they exaggerate in a similar amount. One manufacturer of DCinema projectors has different lumen specs depending on which document you look!

If I had the time/money, I'd love to measure them all with all the variants of lamps (yes merely changing the brand/model of lamp without changing the wattage can have dramatic changes in light throughput). It needs to be a 3rd party that just measures all of them the same way.

quote: Mark GulbrandsenVery nice piece of gear and image quality thats almost scarey when you run 4K content.

Unfortunately Hollywood studios are still producing very little in the way of native 4K rendered movies. They have little incentive for doing so.

The amount of time in the theatrical release window is shrinking. There is no outlet for 4K in home theater. The prevailing attitude is 2K is good enough for things like Blu-ray regardless of the evidence that 1080p reductions from 4K and greater resolution sources look better than stuff scanned and rendered in HDTV levels of resolution.

It takes less time and money to render CGI, node based effects compositing and digital intermediates in 2K than it does 4K. New computing hardware and increasingly massive amounts of data storage make 4K work flows ever more practical, but those same performance gains also apply to 2K making 2K even cheaper and easier. So let's just keep doing everything in 2K!

Lately the rage with 3D (and doing all the 2D/3D conversion chores) has done even more to discourage rendering movies in 4K. Studios think they're going to do better creating dual 2K camera eye views than a single 4K mono-optical view.

If I see a theater trumpeting its 4K projectors in advertising I'm naturally going to be pretty suspicious of what's actually being shown on screen. 2K material blown up through a 4K projector is still really only 2K material. At least with 70mm blow-ups of 35mm film material the 70mm projection provided real mechanical benefits over 35mm (brighter, more steady image) and the 70mm prints were typically produced with higher standards. A 70mm blow-up would typically look better than the 35mm counterpart of the same movie. A 4K projector isn't going to do anything substantial with a 2K movie that a decent 2K projector wouldn't already accomplish.

In the end 4K is nothing to get excited about unless the projector is showing something truly 4K in resolution.

quote: Bobby HendersonThe amount of time in the theatrical release window is shrinking.

Actually a couple of studios increased the average window by a few days last year, according to NATO stats. More like it's "holding steady." Given the supposed flop of the "Home Premiere" program so far, maybe the overall average window might enlarge a little now...we can hope. Not likely, but we can hope.

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.